FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 15, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1453 6
D. C. Docket N o. 01-00146 -CV -O RL -31-KR S LAW RENCE E. W EST, JR., RENN W EST, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us DYNCORP, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, DYNAIR CFE SERVIC ES, INC., n.k .a. Swis sp or t CF E, Inc., et . al.. D ef en dants . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida (A ug us t 15, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , P RY O R and A L A RC O N *, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ * Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation.As part of its contract r esponsibiliti es, Dy nCorp was re sponsible for over seeingthe 1 modification of a f

leet of O V-10 a ircra ft, so that they could ca rry and spra y herbic ide, and providing support and maintena nce se rvice s for the f

leet. His wife joined him as a plaintiff. Since her

rec overy depends on the merits of West’s 2 claims, we r efe r only

to West i n this opini on. 2 PE R CU RIA M: Inthi s c as e, appe lle e D ynC or p ha d ac ontra ct

w iththe U
. S. S ta te D ep ar tm en t t o e ra dic at e co ca

plants in Co lum

bia , S
. A
. T he c ontra ct

c al le d f or fixed wing pilots to fly

aircr aft and conduct aerial spray ing m issio ns. D ynCorp 1 had no pi lots to fly

its aircra ft, so it su bcontracted with E AS T to provide qualified fixed wing pilots
. Appellant Lawr ence E . W est, Jr. , w as one of the pilots EA ST provided
. On Fe bruary

6, 2000, an O V- 10 aircraf t W est wa s pilot ing crashed near Larandia, Colum

bia. W est survived th e cr ash and broug ht this com m on law tort
ac tio n a ga ins t D ynC or

p ( an d othe rs not

be fo re us) to re co ve r co m pe nsa tor y a nd puni tive dam ages. H is third am ended com plaint asserted the following person al 2 i n ju ry c l a i ms a g a i n s tDyn C o r p : C o u n tI , n e g l i g e n c e , C o u n tI I I , s t r i c tl i ab i l i t y; Co unt I V , f ra ud and m isr ep re se ntatio n; C ount V , w ill fu l, w an ton , a nd r ec kle ss
m is co nd uc t. D ynC or p’ s answ er , in ad dit ionto de ny ing that i t ha d c om m itt ed the se tor ts, al le ge d th at

it w as im m une f ro m sui t un de r the L ongs hor e an d H ar bor W orke rs ’ Co m pe nsa tio n A ct

( L H W CA ), 33 U
. S. C. § 90 1 e t se q. , be ca use a t the ti m e of

theWest’s first two complaints demanded a jury trial; his third amended c omplaint did not. 3 For purposes of this appe al, we tr eat West as havingmade a timely demand f

or a jury trial. 3 cr as h, a nd the e ve nts le ad ing up t o it , W es t w as f unc tio nin g a s D ynC or

p’ s bor ro w ed se rv an t. T he part ie s a gr ee d th at whe the r W es t w as abor

ro w ed se rv an t pr es en te d a qu es ti on of l aw fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t t o d eci de
. D ynC or p m ove d th e co urt f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe bor

ro w ed -s er

vant iss ue , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld o ra l arg um en t onthe m oti on. A t the e nd o f the hearing, the c ourt denied th e m otion , c onclud ing th at m aterial issues of fa ct
re m ai ne d to be li tig at ed , a nd s ch ed ule d “ [a ] pr etri al e vid en tiary he ar ing
. ” O n th e
sc he dul ed he ar ing da te , the c ourt st at ed : “ T his he ar ing tod ay w as not ic ed

a s a bif ur cate d be nc h tr ia l. ” W es t’ s c ouns el part ic ipate d inthe e nsui ng f ac t- fi ndi ng pr oc ee din gs w ith out

obj ec tio n. Ar ep re se nte d party f or fe its his or

he r ri ght to a jury tria l b y

pa rti ci pa ti ng in a bi fu rcat edbe nc h t ria l wi th ou t t im el y ob jecti on . Southland Reship, Inc. v. F legel, 534 F. 2d 63 9, 645 (5th Cir. 1976). 3 T he be nc h tr ia l t ook pla ce on Apr il 20 and 2 1, 200 4. A ft er he ar ing the
ev ide nc e an d r es olv ing a ny f ac tua l di sput es it

pr es en te d, the c ourt he ld tha t W es t
w as D ynC or

p’ s bo rr ow ed

se rv an t and tha t c onsi ste nt w ithL H W CA ’ s e xc lus ivi ty provisi on, 33 U. S. C. § 905 (a), W est could no t m aintain his Cou nt I and Count III cl ai m s a ga ins t D ynC or

p. I t the n or de re d th e part ie s to br ie f the que sti on o f4

whe th er § 90 5( a) p recl ud edW es t’s Co un t IV an d C ou nt V clai m s. I n a n o r d e r

e n t e r e do n A u g u s t3 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e c o u rtc o n c l u d e dt h a tt h e c l a i ms
as se rt ed in tho se c ount s “ ar e une xc ep tio na l, ” an d th at suc h c la im s and the pr oof W es t of fe re d to sup port the m

“ do n ot s ugge st i n any

w ay that D ynC or

p a ct ed or fa ile d to a ct

w ithade lib er at e int en t t o in j ur e” him
. I n othe r w or ds, Co unt s I V a nd V w er e dupl ic ito us o f Co unt s I a nd I II
. A ft er the c ourt he ld tha t the “ dua lcapacity ” doctrine did not apply in the context of this case, it gave Dy nCorp final j udgm en t di sm iss ing a ll of W es t’ s c la im s. W es t no wappe al s. First, he contends th at because he dem anded a trial by j ury , the district court
erre d i n re so lv in g t he bo rro wedser va nt is su e ata be nc h t ria l. We fin d n o e rro r. O ur e xa m inatio n of

the r ec or d le av es us w ithno d oubt that W es t c onse nte d to the be nc h tr ia l and the re by

w ai ve d hi s S ev en th A m en dm en t r igh t t o have aj ur y de ci de th e is su es of f

act in vo lv edin th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e b orro wedserva nt do ct rin e. Furthe r, w e fi nd n o e rr or

in the c ourt’ s r es olu tio n of tho se iss ue s of

f ac t and i ts
co nc lus ionthat W es t w as abor ro w ed se rv an t. T he re fo re , a s th e co urt pr ope rl y he ld, § 90 5( a) f

or ec los ed the ne gli ge nc e an d stri ct li ab ili ty c la im s a sse rt ed

in Co un ts I an d II I. W e ne ed not de ci de w he the r § 90 5( a) f or ec los ed W es t’ s C ount

I V a nd Co unt V c la im s be ca

use the a lle ga tio ns o f tho se c ount s do not r ise to the le ve l of5

in te nt io na l t or t. Fo r th is reas on , th e co ur t p ro pe rly dis m is se d t he m . Fin al ly, we ag re e w iththe c ourt’ s r

uli ng tha t the dua l c ap ac ity doc tr ine doe s no t a

ppl y in thi s
cas e. AFFIRMED.